slightlytreasonous

Why do I even try?

I may have said I would be gone, but that doesn't mean my overwhelming urge to push for a batle overhaul in general ever will be.

With the work week (I assume)over, I'm probably gonna go the same path of Littorio. This game could be the holy grail of the genre for who knows how long, if a few systems were overhauled. But as Littorio said, instead of necessary reworks it's more like duct tape. He was right when he said it would do more good for the game if development basically halted to overhaul core systems. I agree its a bit unreasonable but still an ideal. Littorio was right about basically everything, frankly. It's a shame that the devs don't seem to be listening. Maybe not agreeing, but at least listening. Maybe it's temporary? Maybe we will see these mythical things? God knows because it's total radio silence, I've pleaded and pleaded for so much as a vague non committal, but just that is mythical at best. The devs saying the campaign will be a sandbox almost seems like a lie, or a joke at best. Guns, obsoleteness, don't even get me started. But I probably should get started. We are still constantly forced not to use "obsolete" things. We can't even build obsolete ships. As I've said so many times before, it might not be obsolete to me. Or maybe I just wanna mess around with a horde of pre dreadnoughts. Maybe for some reason it would just be too much for the immediate future, to give us more freedom? But they have gotten even stricter with 1.06. Is there a good reason for this? Is it for the AI? Can't obsoleteness be AI only? Well, I dunno. Sadly I'm not a psychic, and there haven't been any favors done there. Gun stats are country, (visual model!) specific, not at the very least a few randomized presets chosen beforehand, or being able to design them ourselves, as has been requested by me and others. (Armory system, as it's been dubbed) It is always the same. Just like it is with hulls and towers. Replayability has been thrown out the window in favor of unchangeable presets. Next on the list is the battle generator. Which is just that. A generator. Generates a battle out of thin air whether you like it or not. Always available withdraw is great. I am very happy to see that. But I'd think it be much better as the outright "deny battle" of that which won't be spoken because of the rules. But either way the battle generator does not have a shred of player input. Some of us might prefer Jeune Ecole line of gameplay. Still others perhaps prefer japanese Kantai Kessen. Tough luck, because the generator says otherwise. And then we have battles themselves. Formations, spotting, and no strategic level. I'll be light on this because I need to end this rant some time, but it is very much a wreck. It worked for custom battles and the academy. But without a overhaul, it can not, and will not, work in the campaign. The reason name which shall not be spoken is so great, granted I admit it's a unfair comparison and that game suffers from many of the pitfalls I've outlined here, is because the devs know what it is. And they have a guy watching the forums like a hawk, ready to rapidly engage with the community at a moments notice with not a shred of mercy. They know the issues and tell the community, "I get it, this will be worked on." And the game knows what it is, because it knows what it is not... This game does not have that same privilege. Will it be a historical railroad or sandbox? Will it be a "instant action" arcade, or a realistic strategy? I don't know, but if the devs do, they need to tell us. I know this may sound like a unhinged rant, but my final piece of advice for the devs: take what so many have said and stare it in the eye. For suggestions, listen to them. For issues, spend one of the big updates or so giving the long standing ones the bandaid treatment to keep the game playable, and spend the next few completely reworking core features. Grand scale or not. The devs probably aren't the boss so I don't mean to blame them, but that's also why I doubt they will listen. Can they? I really hope so, because then that would mean this isn't an exercise in futility.

I kind of freaked out at first with 1.06 and the fact is I'll always be the one screeching that only one step was taken forward when there clearly could have been a hundred more! And I wasn't the only one. 1.06 is still a good update, but I think it would go a REALLY long way, Nick, to just see the occasional vague foreshadowing or to drop back on old threads and say something along the lines of "thank you for your ideas", "we are considering further X of Y", etc. You've already done better then the vast majority of developers out there, but if it's radio silence on old issues until they are addressed,(rather a IF for us) it will get worse. I don't care how vague, probably better the more vague in fact, fuels ideas and suggestions But please Nick, for the sake of the community, just tell us anything for those certain things that are constantly bought up.

Excellent, another topic to infect with the obvious... Apart from all the choices in the build screen, the game gives you ample opportunity to win handedly. Sure you might have an ammo detonation that realistically should send half the ship to the stratosphere, but its not a guaranteed kill. Sure you might have engine damage, but you never lose all power and become a assured dead sitting duck. And sure, you might have a slower reload for your quad, but you never face random breakdowns in the midst of battle. And as mentioned, you're all seeing. Really, AI improvements can only go so far when we have this level of plot armor. Granted, AI does too, but you get my point.

gonna clarify I effectively mean, basically just a library of parts and a move tool. Maybe not as easy to use as a modular system, but I think sheer variability would more then make up for that.

Gotta say I completely agree.

I'd like to see fog of war and more catastrophes at higher difficulties. Losing all power, turret malfunctions, etc. And yeah, torpedo hits need to be way more severe.

Can we expect shipbuilding behaviors with 1.06, or later?

The landships shall rise again!

Notice I also said "With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever." Maybe that was the case and you were just monitoring the hit chance? I don't know, you just ignored it. Seems to me you want to believe AI cheats, so you cant be convinced.

It is not the average hit chance, it is the average amount of actual hits. You didn't get 196 hits, the top right shows the total amount of hits and damage, for both you and the enemy team. You've only got 13. The "X/Y" is the amount of hits VS the amount of shells fired at the target. Like I said, 10% hit chance doesn't mean you'll hit 10% of the time. You can expect it to be in that ballpark, but there is simply nothing stopping RNGesus from having 1k of your shells miss with a 99% chance. And, as said by many, your hit chance always varies. With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever.

"The ship was built in france, and because of that it was incredibly... French." "The ship was "experimental" and for that very reason it couldn't have been called a failure."

Another 1.06 post/essay. Ships-Designing. Citadels are good but should be optional, or disabled on certain ships. Bit odd a 200 ton TB has one, and they do tend to screw with light ships a bit. Of course it would only be optional in the literal sense for larger ships. Guns. I said I think there's missed potential before, but without throwing the current system out I think that caliber should simply be a number you type in instead of a percentage thing. And we still need choice in the model used. Ships-Building Individual slipways and building refit designs. Helps prevent the AI from obliterating global steel reserves, so yes, it's totally related to 1.06. Ships-Homeport Ships and taskforces need a homeport they can set. And ports need to be able to expanded manually as well, in big amounts at once, I'd love to have a non historical main base. Ships-Politics. As has been said, there's not much you can really do to change global politics. Would be nice if there were more ways, not necessarily a guarantee for things to go your way, but still generally more. Ships-War Not much I have to say specifically here, just would be a bit nice if the scale of large wars was conveyed more. Our ship has sailed from the gun factories to Buckingham palace, and now it sails to battle. Ships-Battles. The least that should be done here is vague doctrines which affect certain probabilities, (Mahanian, Jeune ecole, etc). But I think that they should have a proper overhaul for more choice and replayability. Ships-Crew As said before, training and recruitment should be separated. Ships-End.

Dual casemates, they're pretty.